Wednesday, 12 December 2012

Today the figures for religious identity were released for
the 2011 census in England and Wales. The headline figure is that the
percentage of people identifying themselves as Christian has dropped from 72%
in 2001 to 59% in 2011. As many are saying, the country is becoming less
Christian. “Countries” to be precise, there are two!

Let us try and unravel this a bit. Firstly the drop in
Christian identity hardly comes as a surprise. Church attendance has been
dropping relentlessly since the Second World War. Despite the charismatic
revival from 1960s onwards and the resulting growth in this form of
Christianity in mainline church and some independent church streams, church
attendance on mass continues to decline. Indeed most mainstream denominations
are under the extinction threshold of the Limited Enthusiasm model, and with
their age profile, the extinction of some is only a generation away.

Secondly, although the percentage drop looks large, the 2011
percentage is measured next to a larger population in 2011, than that in 2001.
As a substantial amount of the increase in population is immigration, and
mainly non-Christian, then the percentage drop is artificially large. The
percentage should be about 64% compared to the 2001 figure. That is an example
of how numbers can be used to make a story sound worse than it is. To spell it
out there were 37,338,486 people in
England and Wales who identified themselves as Christians on the 2001 census.
In 2011 the figure was 33,243,175, a drop of 4,095,311.

Thirdly, compare these figures with a church
attendance figure of about 3 million. In other words over 10 times as many
people identify themselves as Christian compared with the number who turn up to
services. Thus the bulk of the 33 million “Christians” have identified
themselves as this for cultural and heritage reasons rather than a commitment
to attend worship. When a religion declines this is what you expect to see. The
living faith of one generation, where belief is central to the person’s way of
life, becomes for many a less enthusiastic church attendance and involvement in
the second generation. Faith is there but more intellectual rather than
experiential. By the third generation many have stopped attending, except at
festivals. They identify as Christians, but beliefs are in the background
compared with the rest of life, just enough to tick a form. By the fourth
generation most have even stopped identifying themselves with the religion.
Thus the census is measuring a decline in the culture of Christianity. The
extent of the decline of believing Christianity is the massive gap between
attendance and cultural adherence. But that is also a great opportunity as unlike other religions Christianity still has a massive pool of people who identify with the religion and be called to faith and commitment. An opportunity to be seized.

Fourthly, the main reason for church and religious decline
is the failure to pass the faith on the next generation. The decline then comes from
aging. Had there have been no transmission of Christianity to the next
generation then the decline in 10 years should have been around 6
million, the Christians who died during that period. That the drop is less than
this number shows that some cultural transmission of Christianity is taking
place. Little of this transmission
is conversion, as that would be reflected in church attendance. But at least
some children of cultural Christians must still be identifying as Christian.
Given the lack of practical engagement with the religion, and the secular
nature of society in the UK, that is at least some crumb of comfort.

It is interesting that the figure for Christianity dominated
the media today. Also of significance is the rise in those identifying
themselves as Muslim from 1,546,626 in
2001 (England and Wales) to 2,706,066 in 2011.
Last year a student of mine did a model of the growth of Islam in England and
Wales and today’s figure was very much in line with the model’s prediction.
However unlike the figure for Christians it is estimated that about half of
these Muslims are active in their faith – practicing Muslims. (It was 10% for
Christians!) Thus the number of practicing Muslims is much closer church
attendance than the census figures suggest, about 50% of church attendance at
present. Also unlike the Christian church, when the Limited Enthusiasm model is
applied to Islam in England and Wales, the evidence is that it is well over the
tipping point for revival in both the heritage Muslim community, as well as
among the white community. So although by the next census there will still be
far more “Christians” than “Muslims” on the census return, unless there is a
dramatic change within the Christian church then the number of practicing
Muslims will exceed church attendance, in England and Wales. I would like to
think that would inspire more Christians to pray and work for outpouring of the
Holy Spirit, and perhaps ask what we are doing wrong that another religion may be getting right.

Before the anti-Islam people pick up on these thoughts I must stress that the number of Muslims, will remain well short of the number with no religion and still be a small minority compared with the total population in England and Wales. Predictions of future Islamification in the UK lacks numerical credibility; Britain is heading to be a secular and non-religious nation, more out of apathy than conviction. That the number of practicing Muslims will end up exceeding their counterpart in Christianity is less about the strength of Islam and far more about the weakness of the Christian churches, few of whom have sought the path to reverse that decline, despite over 50 years of evidence of a problem!

Finally I wonder if history will
record that the day the headline was that “Britain was less Christian”, was the
same day the UK government published its bill to re-define marriage and change
2000 years of Christian history? Coincidence, prophetic, planned? On the same day two pieces of evidence of the secularisation of the UK hit the news. The question is: are churches declining because society is becoming more secular, as some sociologists suggest, or is it becoming more secular because church is declining? Evidence of a feedback loop I think!

In amongst
all the figures, models and social upheaval I hang on to the fact that this is
God’s world and he is always in control! The near future may be hard for Christians, but it will be still be God's.

Tuesday, 20 November 2012

Today was the day the Church of England narrowly turned down
a proposal that would allow women to become bishops. Clearly this made headline
news in the UK, especially as it had been widely anticipated that it would be
passed. One may wonder what having women bishops has to do with church growth
and why I, as a mathematical modeller, should deem it worthy of comment. I
think the reason I feel the need to say something is precisely because it does
not have much to do with church growth! If the church were to face the serious
issues that would help its survival, future growth and ability to carry out its
mandate to evangelise the world, deciding on women bishops would not be on the
priority list.

Perhaps what intrigues me is the underlying reason as to why
this bill for women bishops is being opposed, and I think the same reason why
people now want to bring it in. It is that reason which has everything to do
with church growth, or the lack of it. And I don’t mean all the arguments from
the Bible and tradition for and against, or the need to be modern and relevant.
Strip all that to one side and what is happening is that a centuries old
tradition that has forced everyone to accept women cannot have the leadership
position of a bishop is being replaced by a rule which now would eventually
force everyone to accept that they can. That is, one type of uniformity is
being replaced by another. Uniformity, or the lack of diversity in church life,
is to me the underlying issue to the debate on women bishops and the issue that
affects church growth.

There is a marked contrast between the USA and Europe when
it comes to church growth. In the USA the churches are generally strong and many
are still growing. In Europe churches are declining fast and have been since
the Second World War. The reason put forward by many sociologists of religion is that
Christianity is established and regulated in Europe, whereas in the US there is
no established church and a “free market” in religion operates. As such the US
has a much greater degree of competition as reflected in the highly diverse
nature of churches. Church leaders can be innovative without any over-arching
body to insist on single uniformity.

This is where my modelling comes in. It is that freedom to
compete and innovate that allows enthusiasts to flourish and generate more enthusiasts.
Enthusiasts are the drivers of church growth. Uniformity, and the regulation that comes with it, stifles enthusiasm, restricts
enthusiasts, and ultimately quenches growth, the work of the Holy Spirit, and
revival. In the debate on women bishops it is that desire for uniformity that
bothers me, rather than the issue itself. Allow both to coexist side-by-side,
and if necessary compete. This will make for stronger churches.

Of course some diversity does exist in the UK as there are
many denominations. People are free to start churches, and the rise of many new
and independent denominations such as New Frontiers and Vineyard, continues.
These will no doubt be the main denominations of the future when many of the
older ones have run their course. (Ironically neither of these have women leaders! Although they do allow married couples to lead together.) There is certainly some innovation in the Church of England, it was an Anglican congregation that
brought about the Alpha Course, the one initiative that has probably had more
impact than any other in last 20 years (or more!). And there are many other
examples.

But the majority of the C of E remains untouched, as do many
older denominations, because there is not the expectation among the people or ministers that diversity and
competition are healthy and to be encouraged. Somehow the spirit of 1662 lives
on in the UK. That was the year of the act of uniformity which brought to an
end a generation or more of experiment and innovation in church life and
worship. It was also know as the great ejection when many ministers were forced
to leave the church as episcopacy and the prayer book became compulsory. The
effect on the church’s mission was disastrous and it did not start to recover
until the Methodist revivals 70 years later.

I can’t imagine constructing a model of the effect of
introducing women bishops on the growth of the church. But I am working on
models of the effects of uniformity and the stifling of enthusiasts. Hopefully
I will be able to bring some insights into the positive effects of allowing
diversity, de-regulation and competition on the growth of the church and making
it better able to take the world for Christ.

Tuesday, 31 July 2012

Church growth is not just an academic study for me; it is
personal. Not only am I fascinated by the growth and decline of churches; I am
part of it. I belong to a church and engage in its mission, thus its success is
something I am working towards, not just researching. My church happens to be
part of the Church in Wales, a denomination that has been declining steadily
for many years, a decline that statistically will eventually lead to its
extinction. Such is the concern, the church leaders have commissioned an
external review whose report was published last week (1). I downloaded the
report and read it on my way to the International System Dynamics Conference in
Switzerland, so system thinking was very much on my mind.

I think systems thinking must have been in the mind of the
reviewers of the Church in Wales as they made sweeping recommendations that
would reconfigure the way the church operates, particularly at the parish and
congregational level. In order for the church’s decline to be halted and growth
to come back, the reviewers state that there are two barriers to change that
need addressing: structural and cultural. The structure of the church, they
say, is more suited to that of a hundred years ago. Instead they see its future
in the hands of teams overseeing much larger areas than a parish, with mainly
lay and non-stipendiary leaders. This fits well with my models as it releases
some of the more enthusiastic Christians into positions where they can generate
more enthusiasts. The second area to change is the church’s culture so there is
less dependence on, and deference to, the church hierarchy. This also has
support from my models where individual Christians are the key players in
spreading the faith. The more enthusiasts then the more church growth! The
writers of the report need to be commended for their insight and bravery.

However there is more to be said. Before I do I would like
to step back and ask, why is the church declining? If the attendance data for
the Church in Wales is placed into the limited enthusiasm model then it is well
under the threshold of extinction, a fate it shares with most of the
non-conformists churches of Wales and England. What reasons for decline are put forward for by the experts?

According to classical secularisation theory this is only to
be expected. Stated briefly, as society progresses through rationalism and
enlightenment, religious institutions have less hold on society and thus
religious belief declines, and along with it church attendance (2). Western
Europe and the UK are seen as good examples of this theory where the churches have
nowhere near the power they once had, and church attendance is so low it will
not be long before there are less people in church than there are who practise
Islam!

However this theory has problems. The USA, arguably the most
advanced country of the world, has church attendance at very healthy levels and
perhaps stronger than it as ever been. This has led to a number of
modifications of the theory to explain this observation. Further, in the UK,
the people who do not engage with church appear no more rational than those who
belong. Superstition is rife, and wealth, entertainment, hedonism and ignorance
appear better explanations for their refusal to be part of church rather then
deeply thought out secular views.

As for a second theory, Dean Kelley, and those who belong to
the new paradigm in the sociology of religion place the blame more on the
church itself, than society (3). Lenient
churches are weak and thus more likely to decline, and there are plenty of
lenient churches in the UK! By contrast strict churches are strong and more
likely to grow. There are many of these in the USA, and competition due to the
lack of a state religion helps keep them strong (4-6). But the UK has a few,
and yes they are growing. The
Church in Wales does not fit well into this theory. Generally it has always
been on the conservative side, although some of its leaders would prefer the
word lenient I guess. But the conservatism is more of a traditional Anglicanism
than the evangelical zeal that Kelley had in mind. One Church in Wales minister
wryly described it as “any colour you like as long as it’s black!” Conservative
and relatively strict, but dull and bland (sorry to anyone from the church
reading this). There are plenty of examples of conservative churches that
decline and act as counter examples to Kelley’s theory, and dullness is
something they have in common!

The theory of Michael Watts described in “Why
did the English Stop Going to Church?” is intriguing (7). He claimed it was
because the church stopped preaching the doctrine of hell and eternal punishment. He argued that the
church has only been numerically strong in the late 18thand 19th century. However, during the 19th century, as liberalism crept into
the churches through the seminaries and the education of the clergy, the
doctrine of hell declined and along with it the cutting edge of the church.

I could bring
some insights from population modelling to add to this. Even if the church had
lost its cutting edge, as long as it kept its own children it would not decline
and may even still grow if average family size remained high. There did not
need to be any conversions for its numbers to remain stable and healthy. But
after two world wars, rising wealth as a major distraction, and falling family
sizes, it could not keep its children. The result has been major decline since
the 1950s. The secularisation of the church was a bigger problem than the
secularisation of society. The cause of the decline is two-fold: aging, through
the church being unable to keep believers’ children in the faith; and the lack
of conversions. But the lack of conversions may well precede aging by many
generations.

My church growth models push this theory further and claim
decline results from the failure to produce enthusiasts, those who are key to
the conversion to, and renewal of, the church (8). If what both Kelley and
Watts say are true then the churches in the UK have been weak and have failed
to produce enough enthusiasts since the latter part of the 19th
century but it has taken a few generations of the cultural decline of the
church to become noticed in attendance figures. The life had long gone, but it
took a while for participation to reflect this. The church in the UK, and
especially Wales, only became the size it did through a succession of revivals
from 1735 to 1904, and there had been a gap of over 40 years before the 1904
revival. The church, including the Church in Wales, is declining because it has
not been producing enough enthusiasts for well over a hundred years.

So does the report address this issue? I wish it had mentioned
a third barrier to change: the psychological one – fear! Ministers and lay leaders
are often afraid of losing control, afraid of being seen as less important.
People jockey for positions in church and make policies to protect themselves,
rather than release others in ministry, this works against the production of
enthusiasts as these type of Christians are feared the most!

I wish the report had not insisted that all the ministry training
comes through one seminary. This creates a uniform pool, and continues the “one
colour” policy of the church. By contrast the Church of England has more
diversity of churchmanship through its variety of seminaries. Diversity creates
healthy competition which encourages enthusiasm, and a cross fertilisation of
ideas. Although the Church of England is declining, it is just above the
extinction threshold, a position that has been slowly but steadily improving
since the 1980s. The Welsh Anglicans could learn a lot from the English ones.

But the biggest issue the report fails to address is the Holy
Spirit. It is the axiomatic belief of the Church Growth Modelling project that
churches grow through outpourings of the Holy Spirit, commonly called revivals.
Any understanding, or any solution, that ignores this fact has missed the point.
Life brings growth. The report started well, quoting 1 John 1, “our theme is
the Word which gives life”. But nowhere does it say how that life is to come.
Removing the structural and cultural barriers are great, but we need to remove
the spiritual barrier that stops us being the completely sold out disciples of
Christ we are called to be. The barrier that prevents us seeking His fullness, seeking
His presence, seeking the baptism with the Spirit, seeking revival. The barrier
that stops us being the enthusiasts Jesus wants us to be.